The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Suppose, suppose, suppose.  (Read 4742 times)

Offline DammitDewd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« on: 15/06/2007 16:33:00 »
Might there be two distinct kinds of people? Maybe there's the thinker who ponders insoluble physical and physiological questions of the universe, and then, of course, there are those less cursed, those who couldn't care less about such things. If so, I now post to the Thinker. As follows; and just for the fun of it, suppose, suppose, suppose;

(1) Suppose all of the great thinkers of the past made a mistake, the very same mistake, led down the primrose path by their empirical noses to a common conclusion that clobbered all subsequent hypotheses concerning the nature of nature, to include Einstein's Relativity Theories.

(1A) If it's true that the great thinkers of the past made a common mistake, the consequences are world shattering.

(2) Suppose the medium of the universe, devoid of matter, is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, no beginning, no end, no fabric, no dimensions, no size, no shape and no displacement, just plain nothing at all.

(2A) Except for damnable empirical observation, everything points to the likelihood that space has no properties.

(3) Suppose all phenomena had to be explained as properties of matter. Said another way, if it isn't matter, it doesn't exist. Call it the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory.

(3A) How simple the universe would be if the Nobody Here But Us Chickens theory were true. There would be no need for fudge factors, such as the cursed universal constant and silly notions like Worm Holes in space and time passing inversely proportional to velocity.

Now, dear thinker, the begged question; HOW COULD SUCH A MONUMENTAL MISTAKE HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND WHY IS IT NOW SO IMPOSSIBLE TO CORRECT?

Continued in subsequent posting.


 

another_someone

  • Guest
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #1 on: 15/06/2007 17:24:37 »
Would you like to first define what is reality and what is a mistake?

I do agree that science is very incestuous (as is any branch of philosophy), and it tends to build on what has gone before, rather than relaying the foundations.

The problem is, if modern science explains as well as it does what we perceive of the world around us, then it substantially does the job it is designed to do - to explain observation.

It is perfectly feasible that there might be a million different models that could explain the observable universe as well as the present scientific model, but to say that this model or that model will explain the observations is not to say there is any way of saying one model is true and another is false.  If they both give equally good explanations of reality, then they are both equally true; if one answers the questions raised by observation better than the other, then tat which gives better answers is the superior model, but it makes neither model either true or false in any absolute sense, it only provides a pragmatically superior or inferior model of the observable universe.
 

Offline DammitDewd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #2 on: 15/06/2007 17:54:13 »
Would you like to first define what is reality and what is a mistake?

I do agree that science is very incestuous (as is any branch of philosophy), and it tends to build on what has gone before, rather than relaying the foundations.

The problem is, if modern science explains as well as it does what we perceive of the world around us, then it substantially does the job it is designed to do - to explain observation.

It is perfectly feasible that there might be a million different models that could explain the observable universe as well as the present scientific model, but to say that this model or that model will explain the observations is not to say there is any way of saying one model is true and another is false.  If they both give equally good explanations of reality, then they are both equally true; if one answers the questions raised by observation better than the other, then tat which gives better answers is the superior model, but it makes neither model either true or false in any absolute sense, it only provides a pragmatically superior or inferior model of the observable universe.


Another S, you raise several interesting points, which I intend to fully entertain after concluding the mental masturbation, which I've referred to as the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory.

However, for your consideration, I submit the possibility that reality does exist, and maybe, just barely maybe, it can be proven somewhere down the line. 

Thanks for the comeback, btw. 
 

Offline DammitDewd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #3 on: 17/06/2007 16:29:55 »
Would you like to first define what is reality and what is a mistake?

I do agree that science is very incestuous (as is any branch of philosophy), and it tends to build on what has gone before, rather than relaying the foundations.

The problem is, if modern science explains as well as it does what we perceive of the world around us, then it substantially does the job it is designed to do - to explain observation.

It is perfectly feasible that there might be a million different models that could explain the observable universe as well as the present scientific model, but to say that this model or that model will explain the observations is not to say there is any way of saying one model is true and another is false.  If they both give equally good explanations of reality, then they are both equally true; if one answers the questions raised by observation better than the other, then tat which gives better answers is the superior model, but it makes neither model either true or false in any absolute sense, it only provides a pragmatically superior or inferior model of the observable universe.


Another S, you raise several interesting points, which I intend to fully entertain after concluding the mental masturbation, which I've referred to as the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory.

However, for your consideration, I submit the possibility that reality does exist, and maybe, just barely maybe, it can be proven somewhere down the line. 

Thanks for the comeback, btw. 


Suppose . . ., continued.

Sorry for taking so long in continuing my presentation of the universe of nothing but matter theory. I make no excuses. Besides, scarcely anyone reads stuff like this nowadays, and even when it gets read, very few give a hooter's damn, and even fewer understand. So, onward and upward with the "Nobody Here But Us Chickens" theory.

Perhaps this stanza of "Suppose" could be called "Hitting the Wall," because that's exactly what happens when trying to extend Relativity thinking beyond the college classroom. Oh, and there's final exams, of course.

The implications suggested by the surmisal that the medium of space has no properties has yet to be fully worked out, but to declare the idea "earth shattering" is equivalent to verbally reducing the Grand Canyon to an erosion problem, which it is, of course, but the scale of it hides the fact?

It's been suggested that we see things remarkably accurate, i.e., what we see is very close to what's actually there. Matter of fact, we scientifically evaluate hypotheses by empirically observing the outcome of tests meant to verify their validity. However, who would think to question their empirical observation that "SOMETHING" exists between objects in space, and another "SOMETHING" exists between events? Ergo, Space and Time are granted absolution. But, it is here, exactly here, when trying to understand how matter moves through space and time, the thinker hits the wall. It's like trying to travel from Key Largo to the Virgin Islands by land. It simply cannot be done.

To be Continued.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #4 on: 17/06/2007 20:40:59 »
Are you talking about the fact that people talk of "curved space" and "space expanding" after the big bang but space is, more or less definitively, nothing. How can it have properties like curvature?
If so, I think it's a valid question.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #5 on: 17/06/2007 21:19:27 »
It's been suggested that we see things remarkably accurate, i.e., what we see is very close to what's actually there.

It has been suggested by whom?

What is reasonable to surmise is that what we cannot see (more broadly - sense with any of our senses) we cannot know to be there; but this is different from saying that because we see it we must know it to be there.

If we do not believe the evidence of our own eyes, then what do we have to believe in.  But that is not to say that the evidence of our own eyes are correct, only that we have no superior evidence to work with.

Matter of fact, we scientifically evaluate hypotheses by empirically observing the outcome of tests meant to verify their validity. However, who would think to question their empirical observation that "SOMETHING" exists between objects in space, and another "SOMETHING" exists between events?

I am sorry, but I do not understand what this means?

There have been many theories (and to some degree, there still continue to be) that suggests a that space is not an absolute vacuum, but has some substance.  These may not necessarily be mainstream theories, but they do exist in one form or another, and some are even relatively mainstream within quantum physics.

But, it is here, exactly here, when trying to understand how matter moves through space and time, the thinker hits the wall. It's like trying to travel from Key Largo to the Virgin Islands by land. It simply cannot be done.

Again, I am not sure what you are trying to say here?

All of this even assumes that motion even exists (one could postulate that motion is no more than an perception of the observer, as time itself is no more than a perception of the observer).
 

Offline DammitDewd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #6 on: 18/06/2007 04:49:39 »
It's been suggested that we see things remarkably accurate, i.e., what we see is very close to what's actually there.

It has been suggested by whom?

What is reasonable to surmise is that what we cannot see (more broadly - sense with any of our senses) we cannot know to be there; but this is different from saying that because we see it we must know it to be there.

If we do not believe the evidence of our own eyes, then what do we have to believe in.  But that is not to say that the evidence of our own eyes are correct, only that we have no superior evidence to work with.

Matter of fact, we scientifically evaluate hypotheses by empirically observing the outcome of tests meant to verify their validity. However, who would think to question their empirical observation that "SOMETHING" exists between objects in space, and another "SOMETHING" exists between events?

I am sorry, but I do not understand what this means?

There have been many theories (and to some degree, there still continue to be) that suggests a that space is not an absolute vacuum, but has some substance.  These may not necessarily be mainstream theories, but they do exist in one form or another, and some are even relatively mainstream within quantum physics.

But, it is here, exactly here, when trying to understand how matter moves through space and time, the thinker hits the wall. It's like trying to travel from Key Largo to the Virgin Islands by land. It simply cannot be done.

Again, I am not sure what you are trying to say here?

All of this even assumes that motion even exists (one could postulate that motion is no more than an perception of the observer, as time itself is no more than a perception of the observer).

Jesus H Christ! I apologize.

Anything I say will only piss people off, but I've made a mistake posting here. I didn't expect to find a great many Enrico Fermis or Isaac Newtons, but I hoped to attract an occasional wannabee theoretical physicist.

The mistake was all mine, but I plainly indicated that I was posting ONLY to "thinkers," those who ponder the nature of nature. Perhaps I should've SOMEHOW more plainly indicated who I was posting to.

LMFAO. I prepared the mathematical model for the spaceless universe theory and was ready to post it. Boy howdy! What a waste of time lol. Please forgive and thanks for your responses.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #7 on: 18/06/2007 05:23:36 »
Jesus H Christ! I apologize.

Anything I say will only piss people off, but I've made a mistake posting here. I didn't expect to find a great many Enrico Fermis or Isaac Newtons, but I hoped to attract an occasional wannabee theoretical physicist.

The mistake was all mine, but I plainly indicated that I was posting ONLY to "thinkers," those who ponder the nature of nature. Perhaps I should've SOMEHOW more plainly indicated who I was posting to.

LMFAO. I prepared the mathematical model for the spaceless universe theory and was ready to post it. Boy howdy! What a waste of time lol. Please forgive and thanks for your responses.

I am sorry, but I am not sure where you get the idea that anybody was pissed off by anything you have posted.

As you say, I am neither Isaac Newton, nor Enrico Fermis, and if I have misunderstood what you are getting at, then I apologise.  There are others here with a stronger background in theoretical physics than me, and if you wish me to bow out and await their finding time to give your ideas more detailed thought, then I shall do so.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Suppose, suppose, suppose.
« Reply #7 on: 18/06/2007 05:23:36 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums